DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the communication filed on 07/08/2026.
2. Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-19 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
4. Claim 11 has been amended to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, for the claim is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 07/08/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a system, and the claimed element (e.g., processing device) is/are non-statutory subject matter. The specification (e.g., para. 135, “… A processing device may be … a processing device may include …”) only give examples for the meaning of a processing device. Therefore, the specification does not limit the claimed element to a hardware device, and the claim as a whole permits non-statutory embodiment, i.e. software per se, by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Amending the claim to comprise one or more of a hardware device or memory would overcome the rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al. (US 2022/0100884 A1, hereafter Fink) in view of Larmuseau (US 2025/0150255 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 11 and 12:
Fink discloses an electronic device comprising: a processing device (see fig. 1 and para. 14 where a data repository server comprising a server processor) configured to
receive, by the server, an encrypted input query hyperdimensional vector (HV) from a client, wherein the HV is encrypted by the client based on a homomorphic encryption (HE) technique, perform, by the server, a hyperdimensional computing process comprising performing a similarity search operation through [a matrix multiplication between the encrypted input query HV and a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of normalized class HV to obtain a similarity score], and transmit, by the server, a result of the hyperdimensional computing process to the client [based on the similarity score] (see fig. 1 and paras. 50, 54-60, 66-68 where the data repository server receives an encrypted query that includes an encrypted ciphertext table corresponding to a homomorphic encryption method/system employed by a data requesting client (i.e., client device), wherein the encrypted ciphertext table lists forest vectors associated with a query vector (i.e., encrypted input query hyperdimensional vector) with a dimension defined by a high/large number (e.g., n=200) from the data requesting client, wherein the data repository server performs a query analysis, searches records/documents based on the query vector’s information associated with the encrypted query, and returns a result to the data requesting client).
Fink does not, but Larmuseau discloses:
a matrix multiplication between the encrypted input query HV and a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of normalized class HV to obtain a similarity score; and transmit, by the server, a result of the hyperdimensional computing process to the client based on the similarity score (see Larmuseau, fig. 2, for a similarity search system (i.e., server), see para. 39 where a fingerprint comprises a vector; see fig. 3 and paras. 56-65, where the similarity search system performs a search by using a compare-add-multiply algorithm to determine a distance (i.e. similarity score) between a homomorphically-encrypted query data fingerprint table (i.e., encrypted input query HV), which includes a ciphertext matrix X.sub.i, and a homomorphically-encrypted data fingerprint table (i.e., a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of fingerprints/vectors as normalized class HV), which includes a ciphertext matrix D.sub.i, wherein D.sub.i is multiplied by X.sub.i (e.g., see equation 4), wherein a distance is used to identity data associated with the query, wherein a response, which includes data identified by the similarity search, is provided to user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fink's invention by enhancing it for a matrix multiplication between the encrypted input query HV and a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of normalized class HV to obtain a similarity score; and transmit, by the server, a result of the hyperdimensional computing process to the client based on the similarity score, as taught by Larmuseau, in order to determine distance between a database table and a query table by means of a compare-add-multiply algorithm (Larmuseau, para. 58).
Regarding claim(s) 10:
Fink discloses a method comprising:
encoding, by a client, an input data to obtain a hyperdimensional vector (HV); encrypting, by the client, the HV based on a homomorphic encryption (HE) technique; transmitting, by the client, an encrypted input query HV to a service provider; receiving, by the client, a result of a hyperdimensional computing process from the service provider, wherein the hyperdimensional computing process comprises performing a similarity search operation through [a matrix multiplication between the encrypted input query HV and a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of normalized class HV to obtain a similarity score] (see paras. 48-51 where a data requesting client receives a set of terms/words (i.e., input data) for a query, applies a hash function (i.e., encoding) to each word to generate a query vector having a high/large dimension (e.g., 200); see fig. 1 and paras. 54-60 where the data requesting client generates a query including a query vector, encrypts the query based on a homomorphic encryption method, and transmits the encrypted query to a data repository server (i.e., service provider), wherein the data repository server performs a query analysis, searches records/documents based on the query vector’s information associated with the encrypted query, and returns an encrypted result to the data requesting client); and
decrypting, by the client, the result of the hyperdimensional computing process (see para. 24 or 65).
Fink does not, but Larmuseau discloses:
a matrix multiplication between the encrypted input query HV and a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of normalized class HV to obtain a similarity score (see Larmuseau, fig. 2, for a similarity search system; see para. 39 where a fingerprint comprises a vector; see fig. 3 and paras. 56-65, where the similarity search system performs a search by using a compare-add-multiply algorithm to determine a distance (i.e. similarity score) between a homomorphically-encrypted query data fingerprint table (i.e., encrypted input query HV), which includes a ciphertext matrix X.sub.i, and a homomorphically-encrypted data fingerprint table (i.e., a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of fingerprints/vectors as normalized class HV), which includes a ciphertext matrix D.sub.i, wherein D.sub.i is multiplied by X.sub.i (e.g., see equation 4), wherein a distance is used to identity data associated with the query, wherein a response, which includes data identified by the similarity search, is provided to user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fink's invention by enhancing it for a matrix multiplication between the encrypted input query HV and a class matrix configured by combining a plurality of normalized class HV to obtain a similarity score, as taught by Larmuseau, in order to determine distance between a database table and a query table by means of a compare-add-multiply algorithm (Larmuseau, para. 58).
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13:
Fink discloses:
obtaining the plurality of normalized class HVs; and performing the similarity search operation on the encrypted input query HV based on the plurality of normalized class HVs (see paras. 35-37 where a vector forest including a plurality of forest vectors (i.e. normalized class HVs) with high/large dimension is determined, wherein each forest vector is given a unique ID, and assigned/chosen deterministically a dimension (i.e., each forest vector is normalized); see paras. 57-60 where the data repository server performs a search for an encrypted query based on the forest vectors).
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 18:
Fink discloses:
wherein the result of the hyperdimensional computing process comprises a same encryption scheme as the input query HV (see paras. 55-56 where the data requesting client generates a query including a query vector, encrypts the query based on a homomorphic encryption method; see para. 60 where the data repository server applies a homomorphic encryption method to generate the encoded/encrypted result).
8. Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink, Larmuseau, and further in view of Masters et al. (US 2021/0194668 A1, hereafter Masters).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 15:
Fink discloses:
wherein the performing of the similarity search operation comprises [omitting a division operation] by a class HV norm value (see paras. 56-57 where the data repository server performs a search using a search space reduction function indicating matching document(s) containing specific term/word, wherein the search space reduction function accepts criteria (i.e., class HV norm value), and returns “True” for matching document(s) that meet the criteria).
Fink does not, but Masters discloses:
omitting a division operation (see Masters, para. 88, where a division is omitted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fink's invention by enhancing it to omitting a division operation, as taught by Masters, in order for simplicity and computational ease (Masters, para. 88).
9. Claim(s) 5, 9, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink, Larmuseau, and further in view of Adir et al. (US 2024/0137205 A1, hereafter Adir).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 16:
Fink discloses:
wherein the performing of the similarity search operation comprises [omitting a rescale operation] (see paras. 56-57 where the data repository server performs a search using a search space reduction function indicating matching document(s) containing specific term/word, wherein the search space reduction function accepts criteria, and returns “True” for matching document(s) that meet the criteria).
Fink does not, but Adir discloses:
omitting a rescale operation (see paras. 46, 51 where a rescale operation is avoided when finding a random mask that is used to find a result/response to a query from a user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fink's invention by enhancing it for omitting a rescale operation, as taught by Adir, in order to efficiently mask vector slot values while maintaining their sign under homomorphic encryption (see Adir, para. 5).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 19:
Fink does not, but Adir discloses:
wherein the encrypted input query HV is encrypted using at least one of a Cheon-Kim-Kim-Song (CKKS) encryption scheme, a Brakerski-Gentry-Vaikuntanathan (BGV) encryption scheme, and a Brakerski/Fan-Vercauteren (BFV) encryption scheme (see Adir, para. 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fink's invention by enhancing it for the encrypted input query HV is encrypted using at least one of a Cheon-Kim-Kim-Song (CKKS) encryption scheme, a Brakerski-Gentry-Vaikuntanathan (BGV) encryption scheme, and a Brakerski/Fan-Vercauteren (BFV) encryption scheme, as taught by Adir, in order to enable parallelization of addition and multiplication operations (Adir, para. 38).
10. Claim(s) 6-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink, Larmuseau, and further in view of Rosing et al. (US 2022/0019441 A1, hereafter Rosing).
Regarding claim(s) 6:
Fink discloses:
[quantizing] the encrypted input query HV (see paras. 56-57, 68 where, after receiving the encrypted query including a vector with a dimension defined by a high/large number (e.g., n=200), the data repository server performs a hash on vectors to reduce the search space).
Fink does not, but Rosing discloses:
quantizing (see Rosing, para. 124, where a query hyper-vector is quantized).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fink's invention by enhancing it for quantizing vector, as taught by Rosing, in order to quantizing hyper-vector (Rosing, para. 124).
Regarding claim(s) 7:
Fink discloses:
[quantizing] the plurality of normalized class HVs (see paras. 35-37 where a vector forest including a plurality of forest vectors (i.e. normalized class HVs) with high/large dimension is determined, wherein each forest vector is given a unique ID, and assigned/chosen deterministically a dimension; see paras. 41-42 where the data repository server applies a hash function to determine a slot/dimension for a vector having a high/large dimension (e.g., 200)).
Fink does not, but Rosing discloses:
quantizing (see Rosing, para. 120, where encoded hyper-vectors are quantized).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fink's invention by enhancing it for quantizing vectors, as taught by Rosing, in order to quantizing hyper-vector (Rosing, para. 120).
Regarding claim(s) 17:
See the rejections to claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN V. DOAN whose telephone number is 571-272-3809. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday, 9:00am – 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PHILIP CHEA, can be reached on 571-272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUAN V DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights